BreedingFerrets.net

Sometimes when I hear people in my generation talk about God in general and the church in particular, I am embarrassed.  Kinda like that feeling you get when you watch someone on stage forget their lines.  I don’t know whether to giggle or puke, but I know that I am uncomfortable. 

The conversations are endless in their redundancy…Statements such as these:

·         “Why can’t people just love Jesus?”

·         “I like God, but I don’t like the Church.”

·         “Denominations make me mad.  Why can’t people just agree?”

·         “Let’s just make a difference in the world (end poverty, curb homelessness, etc.).”

·         “Forget the church, house church is the way to go…”

I don’t know if other people get uncomfortable with these statements, but they scare me.  They scare me because they are the fruit of a misunderstanding of the message of the gospel and the purpose of the church.  Or more appropriately, they are evidence of someone who may not have deeply considered the truth claims of Scripture and how best to evidence them in our world.

In great contrast to the classic work of CS Lewis, today’s Mere Christianity is a cultural fad of minimalistic Christianity without any solid foundation or doctrinal elaboration. 

Again, I find Carl Trueman helpful at this point:

“Salvation does not depend upon the individual’s possession of an elaborate doctrinal system or a profound grasp of intricate and complex theology.  Yet this is not my point.  What I am claiming is that mere Christianity, a Christianity which lacks this doctrinal elaboration, is an insufficient basis either for building a church or for guarantying the long-term stability of the tradition of the church.”

Carl Trueman, “Minority Report”

Living next to a college campus, I see this trend often.  The typical rallying cry of parachurch ministries and many so-called non-denominational churches lies in their attempt to transcend natural denominational boundaries to impact people for the cause of the kingdom.  The problem is not in this goal, but in its implications.  By removing doctrine from the formula for a church or ministry, faith in Jesus and association with the church becomes such a broad umbrella that almost anybody can fit under it.

The question is whether or not this is wise or realistic.  Can you remove theology and doctrine from the life of the church and still have a church or ministry?   For example, is there such a thing as non-denominational church?

In one sense, yes.  churches can chose to not associate with a denominational camp and, for multiple purposes, choose to carve their own path.  However, in a more important sense, no.  Denominations exist because people are forced to make theological claims.   All churches must make theological claims.  Therefore, the theological claims to which one holds must serve as the foundation for association with any church or ministry. 

The underlying motive behind most non-denominational, non-doctrinal movements is a desire to just reach people. In order to just reach people you must cater to the American consumerism that makes doctrinal minimalism possible.  It is easier to attract a wide audience to something that lacks theological nuance and complexity, than it is to attract them to a robust doctrine and healthy church.  

Mark Driscoll illustrates this to his church using an open hand and a closed hand.  In the closed hand are all the theological issues that are a non-negotiable for him and those that join Mars Hill.  In the open hand are those issues on which there can be disagreement and debate while still having unity in association.  The question is still:  Who or what determines what theological claims go in what hand?

To this question, my generation has answered by placing almost nothing in the closed hand and leaving everything in the open hand. It is all up for debate:

·         What is man’s condition?

·         How is man reconciled to God?

·         What is the church and how is it to be led?

These are just a few of the questions that many of my peers have placed in the open hand.   And in so doing, they have created a massive umbrella and attempted to rally the troops.  But they have simply rallied the troops to a group gathering that stands for little or nothing. 

In my opinion, this is why social justice issues are so central to younger evangelicals today.  There is no question that social justice causes have been neglected by the church in the past.  However, there is also little doubt that social justice issues are the easiest issues to get most within the church to verbally agree to.  Should we feed the poor? Yes, certainly.  Should we give to disaster relief?  Yes, again.  The only issue here is motivating people to actually do it (something many within the church fail to do).

However, when you get to more central theological issues (who is God, what is man’s problem, how is man reconciled to God, what is the nature of the church, who should lead the church) it is much more difficult to find consistent assent.  Start talking about substitutionary atonement and you are likely to get much fewer amens than preaching on loving hurting people.  Talk about God’s sovereignty and you are likely to get an answer that basically says “that’s above my pay grade,” but homelessness, I can handle that. 

It seems that there is within Christianity a natural gravitational pull to the lowest common denominator and the biggest umbrella.  Does this mean that you must be a part of a certain denomination?  No.  However, does it mean that you must have a Biblically informed doctrinal basis for what you believe about God, man, and sin. 

Find a broad enough umbrella that everyone can agree upon,

and before long you believe nothing.

So, over the next few weeks I am going to attempt to spell out what I believe are the essential core values for a church or ministry.  And, no Rihanna, I will not stand under your umbrella no matter how many times you ask!